Page V-1 Monday, August 1, 2011 FarmWeek
®
Wings of change BY RICH GUEBERT JR.
Chairman Illinois Farm Bureau Resolutions Committee
A
s the old maxim goes, something as inconsequential as the flutter of a butterfly’s wings can cause a typhoon halfway around the world.
You can view the so-called “butterfly effect” as a cautionary reminder of the consequences our daily actions may carry. Or maybe it’s a simple yet powerful metaphor for the cumulative forces that continue to shape our communities, our society, our world. Certainly, the credo “Think globally and act locally” is no longer merely the stuff of bumper stickers and stump speeches. A growing public chorus reverberates throughout our social and environmental policy, our economic theory, and our concern for a growing world population with a mounting appetite and dwindling global resources to satisfy it. What we do in American agriculture can generate powerful winds of change. In a world shaken by nutritional insecurity and consumer uncertainty, we can broadcast the message of responsible farming and food production into our cities and the government halls where policy is written and our ability to feed the world is can be either restrained or unleashed. In a society hungry for safe, sustainable, and stable nourishment, we can replace empty political rhetoric with fortifying debate about food policy and its ramifications beyond the farm gate. In a global community where the engines of economic growth are firing and environmental anxieties flaring, we can help shape a blueprint for individual farm stewardship that will both nourish and nurture the planet. This is your opportunity. Over the next few months, county Farm Bureau members will focus on issues that include the farm bill, nutrient management, food safety, and farmer image. Illinois Farm Bureau’s Resolutions Committee this fall will distill local thought into a plan of action for delegate debate in December. Imagine thousands of wings fluttering simultaneously, in Farm Bureau conference rooms and cafes and auditoriums across the Illinois countryside. That’s you: generating a buzz, a whirlwind of opinion and innovation, refreshing new currents of change that will carry agriculture — and the world — into a new era.
From the
‘Belt’ to the Beltway
Producers face tough farm bill environment in D.C.
W
ith the Food, Conservation, and Energy largest obstacle in negotiating the next farm bill. All Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill) set to areas of the budget are being asked to make substanexpire in the fall of 2012, substantial tial cuts, including agriculture. debate already has begun on what the next farm bill Even though the agriculture industry can point to should contain in the way of support to producers. the fact that the 2008 farm bill stripped $6 billion out The concept of supporting American agriculture of crop insurance funding and the 2010 renegotiation began more than 70 years ago, when Congress first of the insurance industry’s Standard Reinsurance made the conscious decision to ensure that our citiAgreement took another $5 billion, agriculture is not zens had access to a stable, safe, abundant, and exempt from additional, severe budget reductions. affordable food supply. Maintaining a meaningful safety net for farmers in That concept is still valid, and quite likely more this farm bill environment will be a challenge, albeit a important than ever before when you consider the challenge we all must engage in if we hope to be sucexpected growth in world population, ever increasing cessful in obtaining food security for this great country. demand for food, volatile and high-priced producThe 2008 farm bill was historic in that it included tion inputs, burgeoning regulatory burdens, and two brand-new programs in the Commodity Title: world terrorism that could easily threaten the safety the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) proand availability of foreign food supplies if we Ameri- gram and the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Paycans had to rely on importing the bulk of our food. ments Program (SURE). ACRE was designed to be No farm bill debate has ever been easy, and the the first revenue-based safety net provision ever con2012 farm bill debate is no exception. In fact, one tained in a farm bill. It was meant to provide revenue seasoned farm bill veteran told the Illinois Farm protection to farmers if either price or production Bureau's Farm Policy Task losses occurred. Force that this will be the Losses had to occur both toughest environment in on the individual farm and which to pass a farm bill he at the state level for payhas ever seen. ments to be made. In addiGiven the likelihood of severe budget Even though he was refer- cuts to agricultural programs, what protion, farmers had to forfeit ring to numerous issues when gram(s) can you simply not do without? 20 percent of their direct he made that statement, payments and 30 percent of severe budget cutbacks and their marketing loan rate to Should a revenue-based safety net, dealing with the large number such as ACRE, be extended in the 2012 enroll in ACRE. Numerous of newly elected Congresother built-in hurdles and farm bill? Should ACRE be enhanced sional members unfamiliar provisions kept most farmwith higher coverage levels? Should with agricultural issues ers from enrolling. coverage be reduced and ACRE used topped the list. In the U.S. Illinois leads the nation in more as a disaster program? House of Representatives, 93 ACRE participation with seats changed in the last elecapproximately 17 percent of Should the concept of a permanent tion, representing the single disaster program be included in the next all farms enrolling. Even greatest upheaval since 1948. farm bill? Do you find value in knowing though ACRE provided sigNearly a third of the 80 nificant corn and wheat paythe level of disaster support you will be new Republican members ments to Illinois farmers offered prior to planting a crop? elected have never served in who signed up for it the any elected office prior to first year it was available, its winning the last election. continued existence in the Twenty of the 46 House Agricultural Committee next farm bill is far from assured given budget cutmembers are new. Keep in mind that these newly backs, the complexity of the program leading to elected officials by and large do not come from agri- rather low use by farmers, and the potential that cultural regions and were elected with a common newly elected officials will not fully understand the platform: to cut spending. Needless to say, it will be a program or its need. tall task helping these members understand agriculSURE was historic in that it represented the first ture's unique needs and issues and seeking their sup- ever "permanent" disaster program within the farm port in the farm bill debate. Budget shortfalls and cutbacks represent the See FARM BILL, page V-4
YOUR THOUGHTS?
from lacon to the loop
FarmWeek Page V-2 Monday, August 1, 2011
How does Illinois’ farmer image play into consumer attitudes?
C
onsumers are getting information about farming and farming practices from a variety of sources including the media, books, talk shows, social networking sites, documentaries, online communities, and peers. Despite all of the information available, consumers readily admit they don’t know much about farmers, farming, or how their food is grown, according to research conducted by the Illinois Farm Families (IFF) coalition over the past two years. The coalition is comprised of Illinois Beef Association, Illinois Corn Growers Association, Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Soybean Association and the Illinois Pork Producers Association. Research indicates today’s consumers are becoming more interested in the food they eat — what’s in it and how it’s grown. Because of the Internet, their access to information about food has increased exponentially, altering their buying habits at farmers’ markets, buying locally grown food, and otherwise impacting the marketplace. When they have limited knowledge of farming, they can be easily influenced by a prominent talk
show featuring an activist view of farming. The IFF is trying to insert farmers into the conversation as a source of information for Illinois consumers through the Farmers Opening Our Doors (FOOD) movement. IFF research found that direct interaction with farmers is the most effective method to influence consumer perceptions. Focus group members still recalled visits to farms when they were school children. Talking with farmers at farmers’ markets was cited as the leading source of information. The FOOD movement intends to create experiences and build on these experiences through social media, interaction with farmers at events, farmers’ markets, and retail marketing. A new website, {www.watchusgrow.org} launched in May. The website includes blogs from several family farmers. It allows consumers to ask questions, and is being used to identify mothers interested participating in farm tours and blogging about their experience. The goal of the FOOD movement is to build Illinois consumers’ confidence in and trust of Illinois
PRODUCERS AND PERCEPTION U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) is a newly formed alliance consisting of a wide range of prominent farmer- and rancher-led organizations and agricultural partners. The group intends to lead the dialogue and answer Americans’ questions about how we raise our food — while being stewards of the environment, responsibly caring for our animals and maintaining strong businesses and communities. More information on the alliance can be found at {www.usfraonline.org}. The Illinois Farm Bureau is an affiliate member of the alliance. Meanwhile,the group Illinois Farm Families has conducted extensive research on consumer perceptions of agriculture. Here are some of its findings: Overall, consumers like farmers The image of an Illinois farmer is trusted and respected. Consumers used words like hard working, honest, respect, appreciation, traditional, and close multigenerational families to describe farmers. Consumers admit they don’t know much about farming. • 40 percent of Illinois consumers said their main source of information was farmers’ markets. • 37 percent said their main source was driving by farms. • Only 1 in 4 feels somewhat or very knowledgeable about farming and practices on Illinois farms. • Only 2 in 5 felt somewhat or very knowledgeable of how food is grown. View of family vs. corporate farms More than 7 out of 10 Illinois consumers hold a favorable opinion of familyowned farms and trust the people running family farms, but fewer than 1 in 5 trusts people on corporate-owned farms. They perceive these operations as less responsible, cutting corners in an effort to produce food too quickly, and causing health or environmental concerns. Illinois consumers estimated that fewer than half of Illinois farms are familyowned, when actually 94 percent of Illinois farms are family-owned. Illinois consumer top concerns — those somewhat and very interested: Protecting the environment — 89 percent Becoming healthier through the foods they eat — 87 percent Preparing foods with the most nutritional value — 85 percent Eating foods that are free of chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones — 84 percent What do consumers expect farmers to do? Focus on keeping land, water, and air healthy for their community — 78 percent Care about growing /raising healthy food for their family to eat — 77 percent Be hands-on, personally overseeing decisions made on the farm — 76 percent Be passionate about farming — 75 percent Strive to provide good care for their animals — 75 percent
from the
farmers and their farming practices. Do farmer coalitions such as IFF and the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (see below left) have sufficient resources to make a difference? Are enough farmers willing to volunteer their time to promote their industry? Should county Farm Bureaus consider increasing dues to specifically fund consumer communication and education efforts? And even if efforts to build trust between farmers and consumers are successful, will they meet the expectations of Farm Bureau members? Farmers recently were reminded of the impact activist organizations can have on farming practices when the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) announced plans to jointly seek federal legislation to transition the egg industry to enriched colony cage houses. Does IFB’s current policy need to better define the outcome farmer members want to achieve? One can be reminded of the old saying, “How will you know when you get there if you don’t know where you are going?”
Your thoughts? Does existing Farm Bureau policy adequately address the need to communicate to consumers and the non-farm public? Is agriculture investing enough in the promotion of the farmer’s image and agriculture issues? Are farmers contributing enough? How should efforts to improve the farmer’s image be funded?
coffee shop to the delegate floor
the 2011 IfB resolutIons commIttee District 1: Joseph White (President, Kane County Farm Bureau) District 2: Ryan Keltner (President, Stephenson County Farm Bureau) District 3: Donald Temple (President, Whiteside Farm Bureau) District 4: Monty Whipple (President, LaSalle County Farm Bureau) District 5: James Gutzmer (President, Cook County Farm Bureau) District 6: Keith Mussman (President, Kankakee County Farm Bureau) District 7: Kenneth McKee (President, Marshall-Putnam Farm Bureau) District 8: Theodore Mottaz (President, Knox County Farm Bureau) District 9: Chad Kelly (President, Schuyler County Farm Bureau) District 10: Randy Fornoff (President, Mason County Farm Bureau) District 11: David Carr (President, Macon County Farm Bureau) District 12: Jerry Watson (President, Champaign County Farm Bureau) District 13: Dennis Green (President, Lawrence County Farm Bureau)
District 14: Paul Chitwood (President, Marion County Farm Bureau) District 15: Robert Reed (President, Calhoun County Farm Bureau) District 16: Jack McCormick (President, Randolph County Farm Bureau) District 17: Chad Broster (President, Wabash County Farm Bureau) District 18: Thomas Fox (President, Jackson County Farm Bureau) Illinois Farm Bureau ACTION TEAM Carleen Paul (Madison County) Illinois Farm Bureau Young Leader Committee Darrin Storm (Shelby County) IAA Board of Directors Rich Guebert Jr. (Chairman) Chuck Cawley Chris Hausman J.C. Pool
D.C. to Danvers?
Page V-3 Monday, August 1, 2011 FarmWeek
From
Who ultimately will manage farm nutrients? Farmers or regulators?
T
here continues to be interest at both the national and state levels to address excessive nutrients in certain water bodies. The scope of the issue has increased substantially. It is connected to how nutrient application is managed on the farm. Agriculture needs to better understand the impact of this scrutiny and the role that best management practices (BMPs) play in nutrient management. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pushing states to set numeric nutrient standards for water quality. EPA has been involved in proposing nutrient water quality standards for Florida since that state had not set standards on their own. In 2009, EPA issued a determination that nutrient standards were needed in Florida and then proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for the state. In April 2011, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection petitioned EPA to withdraw its determination and stop further rulemaking in an effort to help the state regain control over the issue. In 2010, EPA issued a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in order to force restrictions on sediment and nutrient runoff across the six state, 64,000-acre watershed. The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and other national groups filed a lawsuit in 2011 challenging the TMDL since it micromanaged state actions and would impose regulations on farming and other economic activities throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. For years, agriculture has expressed concerns with the Hypoxia Action Plan for the Gulf of Mexico. That plan states that nutrient loadings from the Mississippi River contribute to the hypoxia zone and low oxygen levels in the Gulf. On the livestock side of the issue, EPA regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have been debated by Illinois Farm Bureau, AFBF, and other livestock groups. IFB has voiced concerns countless times on the issue. The Illinois EPA (IEPA) has developed a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
From
(NPDES) permit for CAFOs that would echo the federal regulations. Recent court cases have helped with the issue somewhat as the latest court decision stating that unless a livestock facility was discharging, it did not need an NPDES permit. The next debate will focus on how the agency defines “discharging.” In Illinois, IEPA organized a stakeholder group to discuss ways to reduce the point and nonpoint sources of nutrient loadings of Illinois waters. The agency’s goal is to develop a nutrient strategy and is relying on input from three groups (agriculture, municipalities, and environmentalists) on the strategy.
YOUR THOUGHTS? Would elimination of fall-applied nitrogen be a significant barrier for your operation? What best management practices would work in your watershed to avoid mandates on nutrient application? How can we assist decision-makers in understanding the impact of manure application regulations on agriculture while still maintaining a viable livestock industry? Are changes to existing IFB policy needed to reflect the challenges facing farmers regarding nutrient management? IEPA wants to gather information about what is known about current nutrient loadings, determine what needs to be done, and then measure progress. The municipalities have been discussing the development of nutrient standards that, for the most part, would affect urban effluent permits. To address the nonpoint side of the equation, the agri-
cultural groups, including IFB, have developed a Keeping It for the Crop (KIC) by 2025 strategy that relies on research, BMPs, education, and analysis of those practices. A key component of KIC focuses on certain watersheds in Illinois with elevated nutrients. KIC efforts in those watersheds would help paint a more accurate picture of nutrient balances as a guide to help measure adoption of nutrient BMPs. The program also promotes educational and incentive-based programs that will be environmentally and agriculturally cost-effective and that will make the most impact on priority watersheds. For the past several years, the Council on Best Management Practices (C-BMP), of which IFB is a member, has received grants to develop programs that encourage voluntary best management practices on nutrient management and nutrient research. Projects have involved the Lake Decatur and the Lake Bloomington watersheds and Trees Forever. Voluntary programs of the USDA, the Illinois Department of Agriculture, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and IEPA have been used to address environmental issues, and some of the recent efforts have focused on nutrient management. The historic challenge with these programs has been the lack of funding and technical assistance to implement them. A recent USDA program, the Mississippi River Basin Initiative, is evaluating different fertilizer rates and split applications with strip tillage, while other programs are focusing on the use of bioreactors, drainage water management, wetlands creation, and two stage ditches for removal of excessive nitrates. One of agriculture’s key concerns is that there is not just one program or project that would fit in every watershed in Illinois. We continue to state that a heavy-handed, mandated set of regulations (such as the elimination of fall fertilizer application) will not work for agriculture. Effective management practices must be compatible with a profitable, viable agricultural sector in Illinois.
Plano to the plate
Food safety is crucial both to consumer health and farm income
H
earing about a new food-borne illness outbreak when listening to the news seems like a common occurrence these days. The most recent E. coli O104:H4 outbreak that sickened more than 4,200 and killed 50 people throughout Europe received significant media attention. Reportedly, the outbreak stemmed from sprouts, but Germany initially blamed Spanish cucumbers as the source of the outbreak. Ultimately, Spanish cucumbers were found to be safe, but considerable damage was inflicted on Spanish farmers. According to Spain’s fruit and vegetable export federation, the industry experienced export losses of $200 million per week. In addition to export losses, Doane Advisory Serv-
ice economists estimate farm prices for all different types of vegetables dropped by nearly two-thirds and cost European produce farmers a combined $610 million per week. While this most recent scare occurred in Europe, similar situations, such as the 2006 E. coli outbreak in Californiagrown spinach, have occurred in the U.S. Even though the source of the 2006 E. coli spinach outbreak was found to be located in California, Texas A & M University researchers estimate that Texas growers lost $11 million in sales. The 2006 outbreak exemplifies the impact that food safety issues have on growers. The media and some special interest groups often suggest that modern agricultural production has increased the prevalence of E. coli. This is far from the truth. It is important to under-
stand the sources of E. coli, the association between E. coli and agriculture, and ways to prevent E. coli ingestion. E. coli is contracted through consumption of contaminated food including meat, produce, and unpasteurized milk as well as contaminated water and unhygienic contact with people or animals. See Safety, page V-4
FarmWeek Page V-4 Monday, August 1, 2011
Farm bill
Continued from page V-1 bill. Prior to SURE, Congress would debate the need for agricultural disaster funding after the disaster occurred. This was not good for Congress or farmers. When Congress felt the need to help producers in disaster regions, it would be forced to find the funding off budget, or ad hoc. Also, those farmers negatively impacted by the disaster would have to wait one to two years after the disaster to receive any support — often too little, too late. Including SURE in the farm bill was intended to address both of those shortcomings. Congress could now budget for SURE-related disaster coverage in the budget process and farmers would conceptually be able to know the level of disaster support they would receive prior to planting a crop. If they felt the need for additional protection, they could purchase crop insurance to provide further production and price protection. Regrettably, SURE did not completely satisfy either of those goals. Given the complexity of the program, farmers still find it extremely difficult to adequately gauge the level of protection SURE will provide and payments are still delayed until well after the disaster occurs. The other main component of support to American farmers in the commodity title of the farm bill are direct payments. The pros and cons of direct payments have been hotly debated during budget cutback and early farm bill discussions. These World Trade Organization (WTO)-friendly payments have been the most significant and reliable form of support farmers have received from the commodity title in recent years. By design, other provisions such as countercyclical payments, ACRE, and SURE only make payments when certain loss situations occur. The lack of a loss trigger for direct payment eligibility during recent periods of high commodity prices and net farm income have made them and their $5 billion annual cost an enticing target for budget cutters. However, a recent study released by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) suggests that actual budget savings from cutting direct payments would be much smaller than $5 billion. This analysis is based on the assumption that if direct payments were cut more farmers would be encouraged to enroll in ACRE thus exposing the federal budget to additional ACRE payments. Crop insurance, while not contained in the commodity title of the farm bill, is another target for budget cuts. In addition to the $11 billion in previous cuts outlined earlier in this article, premium subsidies are now a potential area for cuts as well.
Safety
Reductions to premium subsidies could have a significant negative impact on farmer's ability to afford and use crop insurance, which has become the cornerstone of the farmer’s safety net. In Illinois between 75 and 80 percent of our corn and soybean acreage is insured annually, illustrating that Illinois farmers have stepped up and invested heavily in crop insurance over the years. Even though Illinois is an extremely low loss state and loss indemnities fall short of premiums paid, farmers have still realized the value of protecting their operations with revenue protection that also provides support to lock in favorable prices on significant bushels when losses occur. Doing anything to reduce the use of this self-help program could have a very detrimental impact on agriculture and our food supply the next time an unforeseen widespread disaster occurs. It is common knowledge that commodity prices and net farm income have been strong in recent years. It would be very easy for newly elected legislators not familiar with agriculture's issues to look at the current ag economy during this budget cutting period and come to the conclusion that ag spending needs to be cut. During this farm bill debate no one should lose sight of the fact that at some point in the future the ag economy is likely to turn around as it always has in the past. The sustainability of farmers, American agriculture, and our nation's food supply may very well depend on our elected officials having the foresight to include a meaningful safety net for that next rainy day in the 2012 farm bill. Given the vast array of uncontrollable risks that farmers face every year — including droughts, floods, insects, plant and animal diseases, freezes, and not to mention commodity price and input cost volatility — it is vital that farmers have access to a safety net and risk management tools that can help them manage these risks. All of these complex issues, and more, are being analyzed and debated by Illinois Farm Bureau's Farm Policy Task Force (FPTF), Resolutions Committee (RC), and GrassRoot Issue Teams (GRITs). All proposals forthcoming from GRITs and the FPTF will be reviewed by the RC in preparation for the policy debate during the IFB annual meeting in December. It is vital to this process that the farmers serving on these various committees and task forces hear from you. Our congressional leaders are seeking input on this very important farm policy debate. Your input as to what the next farm bill should contain in order to provide meaningful protection for farmers needs to be heard.
is to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting regulatoContinued from page V-3 ry focus from contamination response to contamination According to the Centers for Disease Control and Preprevention. vention (CDC), illnesses caused by the most common The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can now strain of E. coli (O157:H7) have decreased by nearly half force recalls, rather than relying on companies to voluntarisince 1997. Improved detection and investigation, inspecly remove contaminated foods from store shelves, in addition, and consumer awareness, among other factors, have contributed to the decrease in E. coli and other food-borne tion to having regulatory authority over fruit and vegetable production. illness incidences. In coordination with the In fact, USDA reports that USDA, the FDA will develless than one quarter of one op science-based standards percent of ground beef samples for the safe production and tested positive for E. coli Should a cost-benefit study be conductharvesting of fruits and vegO157:H7 in 2010. While the ed on any proposed regulation that may etables. Priority is given to vast majority of products are specific fruits and vegetables perfectly safe, an estimated one impact the agriculture industry? with the highest risk of in six Americans (or 48 million Should a study be conducted to deterfood-borne illness outpeople) gets sick from foodmine the most cost-effective means of iden- breaks. USDA will continue borne diseases in the U.S. each to be responsible for overyear resulting in 128,000 hospi- tifying risk points in the food production, processing, and distribution system? sight of meat products. talizations and 3,000 deaths, The responsibility for according to CDC How should Illinois Farm Bureau encourfood safety prevention now However, many cases of rests squarely on the shoulfood-borne illness in the U.S. are age consumer education programs that focus on proper food handling, preparation, ders of food producers and contracted in the home and processors. Food producers many can be prevented through and cooking methods? and processors must have proper kitchen health, storage, their facilities inspected to and cooking. Typically, those What measures can we take to make see where potential hazards individual cases do not make sure the media reports accurate informamay occur, establish preventhe six o’clock news. tion in the event of a food-borne illness tive controls to address A report, Produce Safety Projscare? those hazards, monitor their ect, conducted by Georgetown performance, and fix probUniversity in March 2011, indilems when they occur. cated such illnesses cost the U.S. economy $142 billion a There is speculation that the new food safety regulations year in health care and related expenses. will drive up food prices by $300 million to $400 million as Nonstop media coverage focused on food scares caused food and food-related companies pass compliance costs on consumer mistrust regarding food supply and led to new food safety legislation. The passing of the Food and Modern- to consumers and others doing business within the indusization Act, widely referred to as the most sweeping federal try, according to Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. food safety measure in 70 years, is a prime example. Other issues that can contribute to driving up food On Jan. 4, 2011, The Food and Modernization Act was prices include costs to those who are wrongfully singled signed into law by President Obama. The intent of the act out by FDA recalls. For example, in 2008, tomato growers
YOUR THOUGHTS?
were wrongly blamed for a salmonella outbreak that cost them millions, when, in fact, the outbreak stemmed from jalapeno peppers. After the Food Modernization Act was negotiated among legislators, an exemption was included, allowing producers with less than $500,000 in annual sales to not be subject to new federal requirements if they sell the majority of their food directly to consumers within the state or within a 275mile radius of where it was produced. Education, training, and technical assistance will be provided to growers and small processors. Many businesses sourcing food products directly from the farmer are now requesting proof of product liability insurance. The businesses may know their farmer, but they want to make sure the farmer has liability insurance in case a food-borne disease outbreak were to occur. Even many farmers’ markets throughout the country are starting to require this insurance. Commercial general liability insurance is a major budget item, but many are determining it is a bigger risk not to have it. Food safety scares are not limited to the fruits, vegetables, or meat industries. In 2010, there were 1,939 Salmonella-related illnesses stemming from eggs in Iowa. However, until the source was pinpointed to two farms, farmers throughout the Midwest were affected. Uncertain and confused on which products were contaminated, suppliers and consumers quit buying eggs altogether, resulting in lost sales, not to mention the diminished reputation of growers, distributors, and operations selling the product. The Illinois Farm Bureau supports measures to improve food inspection and safety to assure consumers’ confidence of a safe food supply while being cost effective and size neutral. A reported budget of $1.4 billion for the newly passed legislation already has been reduced to $750 million. This poses the question: Why pass legislation if it cannot be funded? Regardless of the budget dollars attached to the bill, it is costly and will likely prompt many to weigh in on whether the law is cost effective when the majority of foodborne outbreaks occur at home.
Articles for this supplement were prepAred by illinois fArm bureAu stAff members doug yoder, chris mAgnuson, nAncy erickson, And cynthiA hAskins